Live data from Hacker News

Australia to ban engineered stone

abc.net.au

531–540 of 542 posts

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense, this kind of work can have an extremely “toxic” anti-ppe culture that’s impossible to mitigate against without outright burning the industry to the ground. Fines and inspections are easy to dodge when everyone involved is trying to do so. Hell I work in agronomy and it’s hard enough getting seasonal helpers to wear earplugs when riding ATVs all day. Then there was an old supervisor from a former oil chan…

Part of me feels like this is partially the government shirking it's duty to protect workers. Imagine if in the early days of aviation the government looked at the dangers of flight and the difficulty of wrangling pilots, and just threw it's hands up and banned all aircraft.

I understand your concerns about meddling and disruptive regulation and I could cite some instances thereof that are overly heavy-handed but I won't do so here as they'll only distract.

The difference with the early aviation compared to dust-borne diseases is that with aviation it was unclear at the outset what it was that needed regulating and the extent of any such regulation so it's understandable that regulation grew with the industry whereas the effects of dust-bourne diseases on health had been known about for centuries.

Two thousand years ago the Romans knew about the dangers of asbestosis and mesothelioma as the result of mining asbestos although they called it the wasting disease—only criminals and bad slaves were sent to mine it. Similarly, volcanic ash and sand/silica on the lungs disease—whose medical name I cannot pronounce let alone spell—and coal miners' black lung disease have also been known about for centuries.

Moreover, in more recent times (late 19th and early 20th Centuries) these diseases, especially asbestosis and mesothelioma were the subject of government inquiries and the dangers well established. For example, the British Admiralty held inquiries after workers and sailors became ill from the effects of breathing asbestos dust from the lagging on steam pipes. That nothing was done and that no significant regulations introduced as a matter of expediency has to be one of the most unconscionable government decisions of all time—that delayed the introduction of effective regulation in respect of asbestos for over 80 years.

(The lack of regulation is a bit close to home, my father, a mechanical engineer, was exposed asbestos on war ships during WWII and afterwards in the power industry and it severely affected his health. Also, I recall as kids when my brother and I would visit my father's place of employment asbestos was that common we'd make mud balls out of it and throw them at each other. By that time government was well aware of the dangers of asbestos and black lung disease for going on a century but had still done nothing about it.)

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#532
post #424
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like banning chemical products because they are causing death if not handled properly. We would not have an industrialised world if we went that way.

We have for example banned CFCs which are entirely harmless if used properly in properly and fully maintained equipment with proper capturing at end of lifetime... That did not happen, so we banned them. I see no reason that we could not replace engineered stone with multiple other things.

"We have for example banned CFCs which are entirely harmless if used properly in properly."

True, and CFCs are exceptionally useful chemicals and it's a damn nuisance they've been banned because it's easier to ban them than to get industry to comply with strict regulations in respect of their use.

The trouble is that it's not only CFCs that are banned, there's mercury, lead and any number of valuable and useful chemicals that have been withdrawn from use simply because people use them irresponsibly. One wonders when this practice will cease or how long it will be before industrial development is noticeably slowed by the absence of these materials.

Elsewhere, I have been very critical about the century-long delay in bringing about dust-borne regulations especially so in respect of asbestos dust. That said, I'm not for banning its use outright.

Unfortunately, governnents prefer outright banning in preference to sophisticated regulations and I reckon in the long-term this is unsustainable.

If we're to progress we need sophisticated regulations. Users of certain chemicals/materials need to be licensed before they're allowed to handle them. The license would required knowledge of not only safe handling but also safe long-term installation and storage and eventual proper recycling and disposal somehat akin to the way nuclear materials are handled now (I say that as someone who has worked in the nuclear industry). Also, the failure of a licensee to comply strictly with regulations would not only result in loss of license but in many cases being subjected to criminal sanctions.

Such harsh regulation may seem expensive and difficult to implement and in some instances it will be but it's better than outright banning.

We also need an all together new approach to training people about dangerous materials and their correct handling, as to date it's been an abject failure. Either people have become chemical phobic to the extent of ridiculousness or they're blasé about them to the extent of foolhardiness. Overcoming such general ignorance can only be done through the education system and it needs to start at a very early age—from kindergarten onwards.

Keep in mind that as science and engineering develops there will be ever-increasing numbers of dangerous materials developed, the only way we as a society will be able to handle them safely is with new ways of thinking about safety—and that involves not being frightened of materials but knowing how to handle them carefully and in proper proportion to their intrinsic dangers.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ppe is usually bad designed, horrible to wear and has bad side-effects that are not documented. Better solutions exist(like sucking dust away into filters at the saw blade or actively air pressures masks) but companies want the cheap unusable minimum crap. Which then nobody uses and which then gets them thus out of all future lawsuits. It's a ritual to calm the lawyer priests, the workers health does not factor into…

Agreed, PPEs are often badly designed, often excessively expensive and often not conveniently accessible when needed but I've always taken the view that wearing them is the lesser of two evils. Silicosis and especially mesothelioma are truly evil diseases so I'm surprised so many who are at high risk of exposure aren't worried about them. You say PPEs have bad side effects but as I've mentioned those whom I've asked…

I wear a mask occasionally but for a lot of physical jobs it's just not feasible. As in the mask clogs and needs constant replacement or just limits the flow of breath. If you shovel with a dirty mask or have one in a cold (freezer) environment, it's like getting waterboarded.

Its no biggy in an office, and I guess for a ton of people that's the reference "work". On construction sites etc you get a ton of pseudo protection where people pretend to comply to escape the jurists and egghead harassment.

I totally agree that stone lung is horrific, but I also think a ton of laws fail that protection goal miserable on purpose.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#534
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the construction industry. We have about 1:10 ratio of “supervision” to contractors. Getting people to wear PPE is a constant, ongoing 12 hour a day battle. We kick about 1 person off site permanently, every day for something egregiously dumb. The contractor just sends them to another job. And of all the places I’ve worked, my current employer is one of the best, takes it very seriously.

Early in my IBEW (union electrician) training, a particularly outspoken oldguy asked me, mockingly "are those tampons in your ears?!" My response was "No, Carl — they're sound dampeners SO I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONSTANT BITCHING SO MUCH." Old journeyman immediately took me under his wing, and we were inseparable (he even would wear PPE around me). I learned much from this "kind" old curmudgeon. Why the machi…

Bad safety standards create strong unions. Strong unions create good safety standards. Good safety standards allow stupidity. Stupid people allow safety standards to get rolled back.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#535
post #169

It's very much worth reading the full reasoning within the SafeWork decision (page 56): https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/202... SafeWork's view is that the industry is too much of a non-compliant mess to recommend any other option apart from a complete ban.

> Your request has been blocked.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#536
post #424
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s like banning chemical products because they are causing death if not handled properly. We would not have an industrialised world if we went that way.

We have for example banned CFCs which are entirely harmless if used properly in properly and fully maintained equipment with proper capturing at end of lifetime... That did not happen, so we banned them. I see no reason that we could not replace engineered stone with multiple other things.

ah, the "goverment did X before, therefore doing it again must be good" fallacy

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, PPEs are often badly designed, often excessively expensive and often not conveniently accessible when needed but I've always taken the view that wearing them is the lesser of two evils. Silicosis and especially mesothelioma are truly evil diseases so I'm surprised so many who are at high risk of exposure aren't worried about them. You say PPEs have bad side effects but as I've mentioned those whom I've asked…

I wear a mask occasionally but for a lot of physical jobs it's just not feasible. As in the mask clogs and needs constant replacement or just limits the flow of breath. If you shovel with a dirty mask or have one in a cold (freezer) environment, it's like getting waterboarded. Its no biggy in an office, and I guess for a ton of people that's the reference "work". On construction sites etc you get a ton of pseudo prot…

Right, despite my earlier comments I have to agree that in some situations masks are a significant problem. I've had them clog from dust when my hands haven't been free to change them or similarly perspiration from my forehead has made them wet to the extent that no air could flow leaving me gasping for breath.

So what's the solution? It seems that in some situations there is none. Perhaps in those situations the only move would be to inform people of the risks of not wearing masks and let them decide whether to work there or not.

That said, persons who later develop a dust-borne disease are likely to change their tune when the seriousness of their predicament sinks in and then retrospectively blame their employer for allowing them to work sans masks. Moreover, no insurance company would tolerate such a situation if aware of the fact—hence the laws, even if they're unworkable.

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#538
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the construction industry. We have about 1:10 ratio of “supervision” to contractors. Getting people to wear PPE is a constant, ongoing 12 hour a day battle. We kick about 1 person off site permanently, every day for something egregiously dumb. The contractor just sends them to another job. And of all the places I’ve worked, my current employer is one of the best, takes it very seriously.

"Getting people to wear PPE is a constant, ongoing 12 hour a day battle." Why is this? I often see firsthand or on television people working in dusty environments with little or no concern for the dust that they are breathing in. It especially horrifies me when I know that dust is silica or like, or perhaps even contains some asbestos. I wince every time I see professional stonemasons chiseling away or using diamond…

> I never get sensible answers or they offer paltry excuses such as masks fog one's glasses.

Working with power tools while not seeing much due to fogged glasses is much less safe than breathing in the dust, though...

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, murder risk is negligible not because you avoid going out, but because of law. You conflated the two.

Is it because of law? Making harsher laws doesn’t seem to reduce the murder rate. Having a death penalty doesn’t seem to stop the murders.

What are you talking about? Where is murder legal so you can compare the rates?

Re: Australia to ban engineered stone

#540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not at all how economics works. Unless a technology breakthrough comes in that reduces cost at scale, increased demand increases price. The only exception is if producers are already selling at essentially the marginal cost of production for the whole industry. This scenario is extremely rare, especially in base materials.

Economies of scale can happen just fine without technological breakthroughs.

They didn’t happen before engineered stone, why?
Post reply on HN